As always, Sonia, the "armchair quarterback expert" on all superficial anti-Chavez arguments has no clue what she's talking about.

By all accounts the CNE (Venezuela's electoral commission) has the most technoligicaly advanced and transparent electoral system in the world. Here is a short video from last year's presidential election. Judge for yourselves.

Ren, just how reputable is Hands Off Venezuela? I recently had someone challenge the accuracy of the network, since it operates similar to a blog. Who runs it? Who are they accountable to? Where are they/their reporters based? Has anyone verified their information?

I am not saying this because I don't trust them. In fact, I have cited HoV a few times on my own blog but I realized I know very little about the network, less than I know about Venezuela Analysis. I'm wondering if you can clear some things up.

AS for Chav, the Pantomime Socialist, I just don't see any evidence that he is really trying to build up a working class by industrializing with all the oil money. It is a typical left populism - appeal to the poor, give them aid and handouts and stuff. Promise a lot.

And then the economy fucks up and everything goes pear shaped.

It's starting to happen already.

The revolution is not gonna happen, comrades. But there again, I hope you have got used to that. By now.

If this 'socialist revolution' had any backing at all then it would not need Chav in power to do it. The fact that he thinks that he has to be able to keep running for president proves that there is no real 'political movement' behind all this. It is personality politics with a bit of oil revenue thrown in for good measure.

Maybe Chimpy MacFlightsuit and Dick "Shotgun" Cheney can bribe folks down there to vote against the referendum. Since Chavez has supposedly turned things to shit down there, I figure about four hundred dollars a head to about six hundred thousand specially selected undecided voters ought to do it. All they have to do is manipulate gas prices up another ten cents a gallon and they'll make the money up on the extra tax revenue and no one will ever know it was missing.

If this 'socialist revolution' had any backing at all then it would not need Chav in power to do it.

Remember when Chavez was taken out of power by the business elites? The people hit the streets in massive numbers until parts of the military caved in and forced him to be reinstated. I doubt many people would miss an episode of desperate housewives for george bush.

JDHURF: I was surprised how good that speaker was on Democracy Now. Usually the guests are from the kitsch left.

Beatroot: Every reactionary commenter on this blog, recognizes what you are blind to, that a revolutionary situation could develop.

A month before the Russian Revolution nobody would have predicted what would occur. Part of a revolution is related to what happens above as well as below.

I thought you opposed term limits. I'm for Bush having another run if he wants.

If Chavez lost the vote, you could count on the opposition to overplay its hand. The politics would move to the streets.

Pagan: What do you think is screwed up in Venezuela? What do you mean specifically?

Graeme: I don't understand why when we debate people who oppose the Venezuelan revolution, they ignore comparative statitistics?

****This is from the guy who said the Iraq war would last six weeks. Donald Rumsfeld has an editorial tomorrow in the Washington Post on Venezuela:

PRESENT AT THE CREATIONThe Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like ChávezBy Donald RumsfeldSunday, December 2, 2007; Page B03

Today the people of Venezuela face a constitutional referendum, which, if passed, could obliterate the few remaining vestiges of Venezuelan democracy. The world is saying little and doing less as President Hugo Chávez dismantles Venezuela's constitution, silences its independent media and confiscates private property. Chávez's ambitions do not stop at Venezuela's borders, either. He has repeatedly threatened its neighbors. In late November, Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, declared that Chávez's efforts to mediate hostage talks with Marxist terrorists from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, were not welcome. Chávez responded by freezing trade with Colombia.

With diplomatic, economic and communications institutions designed for a different era, the free world has too few tools to help prevent Venezuela's once vibrant democracy from receding into dictatorship. But such a tragedy is not preordained. In fact, we face a moment when swift decisions by the United States and like-thinking nations could dramatically help, supporting friends and allies with the courage to oppose an aspiring dictator with regional ambitions.

The best place to start is with the prompt passage and signing of the Colombian free trade agreement, which has been languishing in Congress for months. Swift U.S. ratification of the pact would send an unequivocal message to the people of Colombia, the opposition in Venezuela and the wider region that they do not stand alone against Chávez. It would also provide concrete economic opportunities to the people of Colombia, helping to offset the restrictions being imposed by Venezuela -- and it would strengthen the U.S. economy in the bargain.

The importance of the Venezuela-Colombia clash goes beyond turmoil in the U.S. back yard. The episode can help us understand what's at stake in a new age of globalization and information, an age in which trade networks can be as powerful as military alliances. Extending freedom from the political sphere to the economic one and building the global architecture, such as free trade agreements, to support those relationships can -- and should -- be a top priority for the United States in the 21st century.

Since the first years of the Cold War, 10 presidential administrations have operated within an institutional framework fashioned during the Truman administration: NATO, the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the CIA, the Defense Department, Voice of America and the National Security Council. Over six decades, the United States and the rest of the free world have benefited from those institutions, which led to victory in the Cold War and helped maintain international order thereafter.

But with the passage of more than half a century, the end of the Cold War, the attacks of 9/11 and the rise of an Islamic extremist movement that hopes to use terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to alter the course of humankind, it has become obvious that the national security institutions of the industrial age urgently need to be adapted to meet the challenges of this century and the information age.

At home, the entrenched bureaucracies and diffuse legislative processes of the U.S. government make it hard to creatively, swiftly and proactively handle security threats. Turf-conscious subcommittees in Congress inhibit the country's ability to mobilize government agencies to tackle new challenges. For example, U.S. efforts to build up the police and military capacity of partner nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to fight al-Qaeda and other extremists have been thwarted over the past six-plus years by compartmentalized budgets, outdated restrictions and budget cycles that force a nation at war to spend three years to develop, approve and execute a program.

The United States has also lost several tools that were central to winning the Cold War. Notably, U.S. institutions of public diplomacy and strategic communications -- both critical to the current struggle of ideas against Islamic radicalism -- no longer exist. Some believed that after the fall of the Soviet Union such mechanisms were no longer needed and could even threaten the free flow of information. But when the U.S. Information Agency became part of the State Department in 1999, the country lost what had been a valuable institution capable of communicating America's message to international audiences powerfully and repeatedly.

Meanwhile, a new generation of foes has mastered the tools of the information age -- chat rooms, blogs, cellphones, social-networking Web sites -- and exploits them to spread propaganda, even while the U.S. government remains poorly organized and equipped to counter with the truth in a timely manner. The nation needs a 21st-century "U.S. Agency for Global Communications" to inform, to educate and to compete in the struggle of ideas -- and to keep its enemies from capitalizing on the pervasive myths that stoke anti-Americanism.

Many existing international institutions are also falling short. The United Nations -- which elected Syria and Iran to a commission on disarmament, Sudan to one on human rights and Zimbabwe to one on sustainable development -- can hardly be considered a credible arbiter of international issues and dialogue. Endemic inertia and corruption threaten to render the United Nations even less effective in the 21st century.

NATO, the great bulwark against communist expansion, could be usefully reoriented toward today's threats to the nation-state system -- global problems that can be successfully dealt with only by broad coalitions of nations capable of efficiently executing collective decisions. By building bilateral and regional partnerships with other like-thinking countries -- such as India, Singapore, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Israel -- NATO could evolve into a diplomatic and military instrument of the world's democratic and capitalist societies.

We also must reinvigorate the structures that support global prosperity. Free trade seems to be slipping out of fashion in Congress and the presidential campaign, with some candidates calling for a "timeout" for free trade and the abolition of current agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA. But the world will need a network of trading nations to provide a way to change the circumstances of people in poor nations. Strong U.S. economic relations with the countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East would encourage international development and investment even as they build closer ties among the United States and its allies. The prosperity that trade pacts foster has proved to be one of the most effective weapons against internal instability and international aggression.

Today's global order is threatened not only by violent extremists, rogue regimes, failing states and aspiring despots such as Chávez. It is also threatened by the complacent assumption that our domestic and global institutions, in their present form, can meet these growing menaces.

In the first years of the Cold War, the free world's leaders created the new institutions necessary to prevail against communism. Sixty years later, six years into a new ideological struggle, in the face of new challenges from asymmetric warfare, in an age in which information mixes with weapons of unprecedented lethality, these old institutions by and large remain arrayed to deal with the enemies of the last struggle, not the enemies of today.

Pundits tend to focus on individuals, not institutions. Personalities, after all, garner more headlines than do bureaucracies and agreements. But when institutions no longer serve our interests well -- or, worse, hamper important efforts -- we need to hear more about reform through public commentary, in Congress and on the campaign trail. The next president will face the issue of reforming domestic and international institutions -- and will need to accelerate the efforts begun by President Bush. We can prevail by mustering the same resolve that President Harry S. Truman and others demonstrated 60 years ago.

"Chavez again threatened Saturday to halt oil exports if he sees US meddling in, or after, a hotly contested weekend referendum that could let him lead Venezuela for the rest of his life. "If it starts a process of destabilization, incites a civil war, not only will the United States not get any of the 3.2 million barrels (produced per day in Venezuela according to official figures) but nothing will go onto the market, not a drop," Chavez warned, explaining he would stop all oil exports.Venezuela currently exports around 60% of its oil to the US. The trade is worth $37 billion a year at current prices, and supplies about 11% of US oil needs."

THIS OUGHT TO GET V-E-R-Y INTERESTING. What will the current White House idiot say? What will the contestants for the next White House idiot race say?Will Americans notice?Maybe.It IS oh-so-cold December and Dancing with the Stars just wrapped up... there's hope some will pay attention... until American Idol starts a new season, of course.

Repeat that every day. And kill everybody who disagrees with you. You will be a good Bolshevik then.

Sonia, do you have anything other than subjective idealism in your arsenal of arguments?

The referendum will make the workers of Venezuela become more conscious of their power. The reactionaries are hell bent on stopping this, spreading all kinds of lies, as it threatens their right to exploit the bulk of the population, this exploitation of the majority by the minority of capitalism making the Stalinist regime look like an episode of the Care Bears. The bourgeois state needs to be shattered and replaced by democratic workers' state. The referendum will put measures in place that will help lay the foundations for this. Every socialist needs to support "Si" in the referendum. "Si" can only serve to help the working class and peasants of Venezuela become more conscious of their power to change society.

Yes, Soina, there will always be "firemen" like Pinochet, Hitler, etc. but they are not guaranteed to win. US imperialism is already unable to directly intervene. Let us hope that the buildings collapse on the firemen to eliminate them and spread the flames of revolutionary socialism all over the globe!

Let us hope that the buildings collapse on the firemen to eliminate them and spread the flames of revolutionary socialism all over the globe!

And you're calling ME a "subjective idealist" ? I know how you feel, I felt it myself and therefore I know that nothing I will say NOW will change your mind NOW. Just remember one thing: fires indeed warm things AROUND them, but they destroy things IN THEM. If Chavez scares capitalists elsewhere to be less greedy, so much the better. But it will be too late for the Venezuelans, and if you ever go there to tell them to their faces just how wonderful their revolution is, they will curse you just like the Russian people cursed me when I was dumb enough to tell them how wonderful their revolution was. (I was 15 at the time, I wonder what your excuse will be...)

I must admit I am not sure that the government in Venezuela will win this referendum. I spoke to the side of my family in Caracas who are pro-Chavez yesterday and even they are against the changes to the constitution. There is a lot of anxiety surrounding some of the proposals that are maybe just too radical for people to ratify. The idea of the State taking kids away from their parents when they reach a certain age and having parental control over the kids in order to educate them is causing particular alarm and outrage even amongst Chavistas… I must admit I am still trying to find more info on this proposal. Does anyone know more?

Tyranny springs from democracy much as democracy springs from oligarchy. Both arise from excess; the one from excess of wealth, the other from excess of freedom. 'The great natural good of life,' says the democrat, 'is freedom.' And this exclusive love of freedom and regardlessness of everything else, is the cause of the change from democracy to tyranny. The State demands the strong wine of freedom, and unless her rulers give her a plentiful draught, punishes and insults them; equality and fraternity of governors and governed is the approved principle. Anarchy is the law, not of the State only, but of private houses, and extends even to the animals. Father and son, citizen and foreigner, teacher and pupil, old and young, are all on a level; fathers and teachers fear their sons and pupils, and the wisdom of the young man is a match for the elder, and the old imitate the jaunty manners of the young because they are afraid of being thought morose. Slaves are on a level with their masters and mistresses, and there is no difference between men and women. Nay, the very animals in a democratic State have a freedom which is unknown in other places. The she-dogs are as good as their she- mistresses, and horses and asses march along with dignity and run their noses against anybody who comes in their way. 'That has often been my experience.' At last the citizens become so sensitive that they cannot endure the yoke of laws, written or unwritten; they would have no man call himself their master. Such is the glorious beginning of things out of which tyranny springs. 'Glorious, indeed; but what is to follow?' The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; for there is a law of contraries; the excess of freedom passes into the excess of slavery, and the greater the freedom the greater the slavery. You will remember that in the oligarchy were found two classes--rogues and paupers, whom we compared to drones with and without stings. These two classes are to the State what phlegm and bile are to the human body; and the State-physician, or legislator, must get rid of them, just as the bee-master keeps the drones out of the hive. Now in a democracy, too, there are drones, but they are more numerous and more dangerous than in the oligarchy; there they are inert and unpractised, here they are full of life and animation; and the keener sort speak and act, while the others buzz about the bema and prevent their opponents from being heard. And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people. When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob. Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. Then follow informations and convictions for treason. The people have some protector whom they nurse into greatness, and from this root the tree of tyranny springs. The nature of the change is indicated in the old fable of the temple of Zeus Lycaeus, which tells how he who tastes human flesh mixed up with the flesh of other victims will turn into a wolf. Even so the protector, who tastes human blood, and slays some and exiles others with or without law, who hints at abolition of debts and division of lands, must either perish or become a wolf--that is, a tyrant. Perhaps he is driven out, but he soon comes back from exile; and then if his enemies cannot get rid of him by lawful means, they plot his assassination. Thereupon the friend of the people makes his well-known request to them for a body-guard, which they readily grant, thinking only of his danger and not of their own. Now let the rich man make to himself wings, for he will never run away again if he does not do so then. And the Great Protector, having crushed all his rivals, stands proudly erect in the chariot of State, a full-blown tyrant: Let us enquire into the nature of his happiness.

I didn't say they were screwed up, my exact words were *supposedly* turned to shit-the operative word being supposedly. I don't know how things are down there. I would have to be down there to experience it for myself before I would have a clue, and even then, that would be all it would amount to-a clue.

I tend to take the arguments of both sides with giant grains of salt.

I will promise you this though, and that is, your opponents on this issue have a very good point. If Chavez scares away investment, it is going to be to the long term detriment of the country.

I hope he takes a more moderate stance than that. If he does, it might work out. Might.

I didn't say it was screwed up. My exact words were *supposedly* turned to shit, the operative word being supposedly.

I don't know how things are down there. I would have to be there personally to experience it for myself before I would have a clue, and even then, that is all it would amount to-a clue.

I tend to take the outside-looking-in arguments of both sides with huge grains of salt. I will tell you this, though. Your opponents on this issue have a point, in that if Chavez scares away investment, it will be to the long term detriment of the country.

I am hopeful that he will prove in the long term to be more moderate than that. If he is, it might-MIGHT-work out.

anonymous makes a telling statement when he says his Chavista relatives are worried about a proposal to have the State take children away from their parents.This is the Spectacle at it's most spectacular, the hegemony of capitalist relations and colonization of peoples minds so complete that they would believe such nonsense even after living under Bolivarianism for all these years.Chavez and other so -called-socialists haven't done the hard work of educating the public as to the depth of reactionary tentacles and so people believe what they read in opposition press.

I like the double bind sonia sets up, very clever.If the referendum passes it can only be fraud.Some democrat she turns out to be.

Contrary to what Sonia said in the first comment, The Venezuelan electoral system is far superior to the "shining democracy" of the US where a blackbox voting machine, which are now standard issue for voters all over the country and can be hacked by a bribed election worker or anyone with a key in a minute by simply toying with the memory. In Venezuela, voters recieve a paper ballot which they submit along with the electronic vote thus validating the process. Even bourgeoisie organizations, like the one led by ex-president carter, which "monitor democracy" have grudgingly admited that Venezuela's process is democratic. Besides, the electoral process here in the US comes under the guise of the government so whats the difference. Its interesting how you claim that if chavez wins its a fraud no matter what. Over 60% of the population voted for him in the last election, the people are with Chavez because Chavez's reforms are in the people's interests. Putting the banks under public control is only beneficial to the masses, it will strengthen their social benefits pulling many more out of poverty contrary to how when the bank was under private control and profit went to a couple of rich investors.

Every reactionary commenter on this blog, recognizes what you are blind to, that a revolutionary situation could develop.

No, I don’t think it will.

I couldn’t care less about term limits, to be honest. I would not have them. But politically what counts for any popular, political movement, is this: if the leader goes, then what is left of the movement? In Chavez’s case, he obviously thinks that without him there would be no movement.

If that is the case, then I hope he doesn’t get re-elected. 21st C Socialism? Even Chavez doesn’t know what that is. If you support Chavez then you have to support all the other oddballs like Lukashenko in Belarus, and of course Iran – just because they resist ‘imperialism’. Well, I don’t think they are resisting anything.

Chavez, Castro, Che…it seems the right and left and united in their nostalgia.

You cannot simply abstain from a revolutionary process just because you don't like the leader. Yes, Chavez vacillates and is not a Marxist, but the workers of Venezuela believe that he is taking things forward, and the referendum will serve to make the working class of Venezuela more conscious of their power.

You have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the workers and peasants - you can't sit on the sidelines just because there are aspects you do not like regarding the revolution.

Chavez is also taking steps against capitalism, so you can't really compare him to Lukashenko or Iran. And unlike Belarus and Iran, a revolution has been going on for years in Venezuela.

The working class needs solidarity of revolutionaries all over the world. To not support the process because of some aspect of Chavez you do not like is sectarianism.

Tula is correct.It wouldn't take much research beatroot to see that the Bolivarian revolution is resisting much more than imperialism. I have had the privelege of travelling there and can attest that the movement is much deeper than a leader or a referendum. The US MSM is obsessing on a select set of reforms which it knows will upset liberal democrats.

By the way,the Ecuadorian Assembly just dismissed the entire Congress.

I am very happy to appologize. I am very happy I was wrong about Chavez. He could have easily falsified the results (especially since it was so close). The fact that he didn't proves that he is not a Communist.

You cannot simply abstain from a revolutionary process just because you don't like the leader. Yes, Chavez vacillates and is not a Marxist, but the workers of Venezuela believe that he is taking things forward, and the referendum will serve to make the working class of Venezuela more conscious of their power.

Ooops.

But there is no 'working class' politics in that country. Yoy mean 'the poor'. But there is no 'movement' to speak of. It's a personality cult and now that personality cult has got a sell by date on it.

beatroot,what causes you to think "the poor" don't work? The poor do all the work, the rich get all the welfare, how hard is this to figure out? There is indeed a movement by a constituency organized around much more than a "personality". It is condescension that could be interpreted as racism (not in your case,but often is)They are capable of ideology, identity,politics just as you are.